halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:RelentlessRecusant/AS DAM
Uh... Relentless... I know what you're tryin' to do here... but uh... why would a Science Industry making drugs and biological weapons develop an Anti-Material Rifle... when there's Misriah, Trinity, WST, and other arms companies? -- Sgt. johnson 06:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Reply to AJ Dear Johnson, Thanks for your interest. I direct your attention to some selected passages from the Acumen page—I don't mean to be condescending, but I think the actual source text would be self-explanatory. Keep in touch. Warm regards, [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 07:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Very good points. Thanks for that explanation Relentless. -- Sgt. johnson 07:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Godmodded Such a small rifle wouldn't be able to preform Anti Tank warfare, even the SRS99 in Halo is useless against tanks. Formally requesting a proposition as to why this is 'god-modded' as to justify the inclusion of this template. Regards, [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 07:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC) RE: Godmodded Dear Ajax, I respectfully disagree, and I believe I have sufficient grounds to argue my case. The SRS99 in Halo is technically classified as utilizing APFSDS projectiles; projectiles that modern day military forces are incapable of firing from rifles but rather from cannons of larger caliber. The fact that APFSDS projectiles can be fired from infantry-sized rifles between 2552 and 2000 I believe represents a substantiative trend towards an upgrade of human warfighting technology that supports the creation of the AS DAM rifle. Furthermore, I further argue my case that this rifle is first seen fielded in Halo: Vector in 2570, that is eighteen years after the 2552-set Halo video games. As you like to point out, in a handful of months, the UNSC has switched between many different models and upgrades in close-gun assault weaponry. I believe that an exponential increase in UNSC technology justifies this. Furthermore, even modern-day infantry-sized AM rifles have anti-materiel capabilities- Furthermore, I argue that in the timespan of 552 years (over five centuries) that it would be possible to upgrade a rifle from destroying "trucks" and "aircraft" to more heavily armored "tanks", as you state. Thanks in advance for your prompt response to contest this claim. [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Ajax, the SRS-99 uses a 14.5 mm APFDS, and this uses an even smaller round than that... in a smaller package. How would it gain enough velocity in the first place to pierce the armor of tanks... well... I guess it could depend on what kinds of ranks... definately not a M808. -- Sgt. johnson 07:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC) :Never mind... I'm seeing numbers... -- Sgt. johnson 07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Seems clear enough that the conflict has been, more or less, resolved. Should the template be removed, or is there any cause for further disagreement? You seem to be intricately confusing anti material with anti tank. Anti material invovles shooting unexploded ordnance, field weapon systems, soft military targets like fuel, ammo, communications. Now guaging Halo era armour technology, if a 90mm high velocity round with tungsten penetrator has trouble dealing with modern armour, and 14.5mm APFSDS rounds can't even damage what seem to be light armour, how could a infantry mobile weapon be capable of cracking open a tank? And fictional liberty seems to be a awefully cheap way for you to try and circumnavigate the very rules of the site, you wouldn't be trying to break the rules you helped put in place would you? :P Anti Material and Anti Tank It would seem that there are issues with a rifle being able to deal with tank targets. So, I'd like to address the issue, since it seemed to consume everyone on Skype, which irks me (arguing about this means less time for me to spam pi). Alright, so the first issue we seem to run into is the claim that there is no possible way that a rifle-sized weapon could ever penetrate tank armor. The argument I have seen Ajax make is that the bullet is too low caliber. The issue, here, is that it is not just the width of the round, but also the length, density, shape, and muzzle velocity of the round. Kyle has suggested that the round be made of iridium, which is the densest material known to man. This means that a smaller round accelerated to a lower velocity would penetrate just as deep as a round made of a different material. It also means that the combat load of such a sniper rifle would be high, and so the weapon wouldn't be something a person could normally carry high amounts of ammo around for, nor would it be a highly mobile weapon. However, an anti-material rifle of this sort wouldn't be meant to be either highly mobile, nor need too much ammunition. Now, Ajax has brought up the SRS99C-S2 several times, the AMR featured in the Halo series. One thing I'd like to be noted is that the SRS99C-S2 was introduced in Halo: Combat Evolved, where all vehicles could not be destroyed. Thus, I think it is fair to argue that the weapon damage relative to vehicles that we see in the games are not necessarily accurate to the what the weapons would normally do to a vehicle in, say, a novel written by Eric Nylund. Furthermore, no where is it stated that the SRS99C-S2 is the pinnacle of UNSC AMR technology. It is entirely possible for a better weapon to be designed. However, the SRS99C-S2 probably trades power for cost, and thus, is the standard issue rifle due to cost effectiveness, more powerful rifles saved for special operations. And that is exactly what Kyle's rifle is proposed for. What I am saying is that it is within reason to say that such a rifle could exist, and thus, the case to mark this article as NCF is not compelling enough to warrant the template. Kyle isn't saying that this is a standard issue rifle that is extremely light weight, can blow up tanks, and is issued to every marine and his grandmother, he is saying that it is a specially designed weapon for special purposes that is not commonly used, and no where in the article is a weight specified (and thus, we can't take issue with its weight). I think it would be best if it is denoted somewhere in the article that the rifle is heavy, and I think it would make the most sense if it had a "clip size" of one, and possible a bolt rather than a bottom feed. However, because I believe that there is not enough evidence that the article is NCF, unless Ajax can present a more compelling case, I am removing the NCF template (which technically should still be there, since Kyle as the author doesn't have the technical power to remove the template while controversies still exist). And in this specific case, I expect that neither Kyle nor Ajax will add/remove an NCF template. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :Thanks so much, Rotaretilbo, for your enlightening passage. :) For the record, it was never an NCF template, it was the "GM" template ... based on personal communications with Ajax on the Skype client, I was under the impression, after discussion with him, that "anti-tank" was the concerning phrase and that was sole justification of his GM argument and that the removal of AT would satisfy him. However, with Rotaretilbo's and AnnihilativeRepentance's agreement, as well as Ajax's inability to argue to the contrary nothing that overwhelms the "liberty" that is fiction; that is, that fiction (in 2570) is not the real-world, I believe this case is adequately concluded. Regards, [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Heh... why create a new weapon when you have the M99? :P Just playing, just playing. I wanna know what this thing looks like... -- Sgt. johnson 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)